Support NeoGAF

[zephervack]

God of War 3 is a looker but honestly it really cannot be used for comparisons, they can spend all the resources on the scene because they are using fixed angles.

Its the same reason why people cant expect whole PS4 games to look like the P.T. Demo, even Kojima himself said that they could achieve that level of I.Q. because the demo is just hallways.

Anyways, im still inclined to say the PS3 is strongest graphically, I remember being continuously being blown away by graphics last gen, starting with Dead Rising 1, Lost planet, then Gears of War, Halo, etc, etc, but Uncharted 2/3 and TLoU just were on a different level.

 

[Damigos]

PS3 for sure. No constest.
God Of War 3 and The Last of Us cannot be surpassed by anything on 360

 

[dr. apocalipsis]

So Xbone because Ryse.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

Comparing Beyond with RDR? seriously? and btw RDR on 360 looks amazing, 1280*720 w/ 2xMSAA, good amount of AF, Euphoria engine, great textures, beautiful skyboxes, foliage reacting to wind, huge draw distance and excellent looking character models for an open world game. The attention to detail in this game is simply stunning.


World in motion timelapse video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROWml_4sYQ

This makes me want to play Red Dead, again. Amazing looking game.

 

[Dictator93]

I did and I didn't find anything that supports your argument. Gears games use FP10 buffers for its lighting which is higher quality than just RGBA8 but not quite HDR, call it MDR if you like.

With respect to your talk about MSAA, you are connecting two separate dots. You cannot use the non availability of MSAA in Directx 9 for UE3 as a proof to say that the game uses HDR. You can have a look at the game themselves and see the intensity of lighting and that alone would tell you that it's not using HDR. The intensity of lighting is just not there because the limited range prevents it from having any without getting crushed whites, and the biggest proof to my claim is that there is no tone mapping in any of the Gears game.

The fact that you could still turn on MSAA from control panel and have it applied ingame in the exact same manner as it would if it were running in Directx 10 counters your argument that it was because of HDR. It was entirely down to issues in the engine and there really was no reason as per why it didn't have it. Bulletstorm on PC used proper HDR (console version were again limited to FP10) and can use MSAA while running in Directx9. It was because this issue was fixed by this iteration of the engine. Arkham Asylum being another case, eventhough nvidia said they "engineered" the MSAA for the game AMD later said that it was just normal Directx9 MSAA with a vendor id check.

Will spend some time looking into this, but I always considered FP10 HDR. Thanks for the response.

 

[MrCunningham]

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

That is absolutely not how this works. Like, seriously. Not only is FLOPS a terrible measurement of game performance, but you can't just add together the theoretical max performance of each component and call it a day. That's just ridiculous.

Exactly, you can't just do a linear mathematical equation here and come to a conclusion that one is better than the other based on this. At least not in the PS3 and 360's case. If we are going to take away anything from this, one system has a potentially better GPU, the other has a potentially better CPU. Though I think when comparing the GPU's it is a little more cut and dry, while on the CPU side, it really comes down to how well the CPU in the PS3 is optimized to to make up for its deficiencies in the GPU department.

Also other things to take into account, the 360 had a unified 512MB's of RAM, while the pS3 had system RAM split up into two different pools, this also played another role in performance differences, as well as the fact that the 360 had another 10MB's of DRAM embedded onto the GPU that gave it an upper hand in overall image quality.

Both these machines have their up sides and down sides and you really have to balance out all the pros and cons of each machine to get a much better overview on their performance. Though I think it is clear that the 360 was better at being a general purpose game console, which is why third parties preferred it more. The best looking PS3 games on the other hand came from the first and second parties, who had a much better grasp on the quirks of the hardware.

Comparing the overall performance of the PS4 and Xbox One is a little more straight forward though, given how identical the chipsets are and the fact that they all came from the same vendor.

 

[AstuteClass]

It's insane how good God of War III looked in 2010. Would still hold up if it got a PS4 port to 1080.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/20/god-of-war-iii-remastered-for-ps4/

 

[hammertomb]

The worst bump in the history of bumps.

 

[SargerusBR]

This bump tho

 

[Dragonborn]

PS3. Nothing on the 360 came close to stuff like TLOU

Edit: lol, I was wondering why this thread was so long

 

[statham]

PS3. Nothing on the 360 came close to stuff like TLOU

Edit: lol, I was wondering why this thread was so long

Halo 4 did, and every 90% 360 game was better.

 

[Syph Medwes]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/20/god-of-war-iii-remastered-for-ps4/

holy shit were you waiting all this time to make that reply? lol

 

[NowhereFaded]

PS3

Never played this but damn , looks great for last gen title. Holy shit!!

 

[Alchemy]

PS3 was more powerful (slightly) but more difficult to use correctly, and the way RAM was allocated hurt certain kinds of games like open world games like Skyrim. The end.

 

[mazpratim]

Atari 2600

 

[Tagyhag]

Did the SNES have blast processing? Didn't think so.

 

[MrCunningham]

PS3, no doubt for me.

God Of War time

SNES games look a lot better than I remember them...

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

Did the SNES have blast processing? Didn't think so.

Genesis does what Nintendon't.

 

[Ocaso]

Title change? Title change.

While the Genesis could boast generally higher resolutions and often smoother animation with less slowdown, the SNES' wider color palette and more onscreen colors made a greater qualitative difference and make this an easy SNES win, even if we don't count the more prevalent scaling and rotation effects.

 

[Sipheren]

I know this is now SNES v Mega Drive, but I just thought I would do up a couple if gifs from the best of the 360/PS3. I think they are pretty damn close but the CELL was pretty powerful when fully utilised.

(gifs are fairly large in size, wanted to try to keep some quality)

 

[ninjablade]

Comparing Beyond with RDR? seriously? and btw RDR on 360 looks amazing, 1280*720 w/ 2xMSAA, good amount of AF, Euphoria engine, great textures, beautiful skyboxes, foliage reacting to wind, huge draw distance and excellent looking character models for an open world game. The attention to detail in this game is simply stunning.


World in motion timelapse video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROWml_4sYQ

game needs to be remastered version so bad, still looks great today.

 

[Overside]

game needs to be remastered version so bad, still looks great today.

Im sure you mean remake instead of remaster.

Cause it really doesnt still look that great today.

 

[Fahrenheit]

This thread bummed me the hell out, thought it was gonna be SNES vs Genesis thread.



But since i'm here I think Halo 4 is the best looking console game on the last gen consoles.

 

[krizzx]

What's with the huge different between the first post text and the topic?

I know this is now SNES v Mega Drive, but I just thought I would do up a couple if gifs from the best of the 360/PS3. I think they are pretty damn close but the CELL was pretty powerful when fully utilised.

(gifs are fairly large in size, wanted to try to keep some quality)

I'd give it to Halo.

 

[lazygecko]

This thread confuses the hell out of me.

Anyway, I'll just just regurgitate my usual disclaimer and say that using ports and multiplatform titles to asess a system's power is generally an awful idea, because way too much hinges on human factors like the experience of the developer (especially if a port is farmed out to a different dev), amount of time and resources given, etc etc.

 

[krizzx]

There isn't really much question as to which had more "graphical" power out of the SNES and Genesis. Things were a lot more simple back then, and the SNES had newer tech that was built around graphics. It could output more colors and better resolutions. The genesis had a higher sprite limit, though, and could do 3D or Polygon based games better than the SNES out the box with no special chip in the cartridge.

This thread confuses the hell out of me.

Anyway, I'll just just regurgitate my usual disclaimer and say that using ports and multiplatform titles to asess a system's power is generally an awful idea, because way too much hinges on human factors like the experience of the developer (especially if a port is farmed out to a different dev), amount of time and resources given, etc etc.

Would be nice if people would apply that logic and reasoning to Wii U game discussions.

 

[entremet]

This thread confuses the hell out of me.

Anyway, I'll just just regurgitate my usual disclaimer and say that using ports and multiplatform titles to asess a system's power is generally an awful idea, because way too much hinges on human factors like the experience of the developer (especially if a port is farmed out to a different dev), amount of time and resources given, etc etc.

A mod has a sense of humor lol. They changed it. It was PS3 v 360.

 

[lazygecko]

There isn't really much question as to which had more "graphical" power out of the SNES and Genesis. Things were a lot more simple back then, and the SNES had newer tech that was built around graphics. It could output more colors and better resolutions. The genesis had a higher sprite limit, though, and could do 3D or Polygon based games better than the SNES out the box with no special chip in the cartridge.

Not quite so simple actually. SNES has some distinct advantages like the color output, and hardware-supported effects, but the CPU in the Genesis was a great equalizer to a much greater extent than what most people really think. For instance you could do things like compression algorithms to store more art than normal, resulting in more character animation frames and background tile variety and such. It's things like these that make the differences between the systems much more fascinating to talk about than others.

 

[Krejlooc]

genesis does

This thread confuses the hell out of me.

Anyway, I'll just just regurgitate my usual disclaimer and say that using ports and multiplatform titles to asess a system's power is generally an awful idea, because way too much hinges on human factors like the experience of the developer (especially if a port is farmed out to a different dev), amount of time and resources given, etc etc.

There isn't really much question as to which had more "graphical" power out of the SNES and Genesis. Things were a lot more simple back then, and the SNES had newer tech that was built around graphics. It could output more colors and better resolutions. The genesis had a higher sprite limit, though, and could do 3D or Polygon based games better than the SNES out the box with no special chip in the cartridge.



Would be nice if people would apply that logic and reasoning to Wii U game discussions.

mod edited the title, 360 vs ps33 thread

 

[hodgy100]

Not quite so simple actually. SNES has some distinct advantages like the color output, and hardware-supported effects, but the CPU in the Genesis was a great equalizer to a much greater extent than what most people really think. For instance you could do things like compression algorithms to store more art than normal, resulting in more character animation frames and background tile variety and such. It's things like these that make the differences between the systems much more fascinating to talk about than others.

pretty much this.

The megadrive could leverage its CPU to really "punch above its weight" so to speak

Red zone for example

The Titan Overdrive demo really shows off a load of cool effects too . including a pseudo mode 7.

 

[Krejlooc]

snes:fixed function pipeline::genesisrogrammable shader

 

[krizzx]

Not quite so simple actually. SNES has some distinct advantages like the color output, and hardware-supported effects, but the CPU in the Genesis was a great equalizer to a much greater extent than what most people really think. For instance you could do things like compression algorithms to store more art than normal, resulting in more character animation frames and background tile variety and such. It's things like these that make the differences between the systems much more fascinating to talk about than others.

I just said it had advantages in color output in the post you are quoting, and I'm well aware the Genesis had a far stronger CPU as well as better DMA. I thought the title specified graphically, and the CPU didn't have much or anything to do with graphics in the Genesis and SNES, to my knowledge.

 

[ElTorro]

A mod has a sense of humor lol. They changed it. It was PS3 v 360.

It's a social experiment to see if people, following a primal console war instinct, would start a dead-serious discussion about comparing the SNES to the Genesis out of nowhere.

On-topic: mode 7 for the win.

 

[Krejlooc]

I just said it had advantages in color output in the post you are quoting, and I'm well aware the Genesis had a far stronger CPU as well as better DMA. I thought the title specified graphically, and the CPU didn't have much or anything to do with graphics in the Genesis and SNES, to my knowledge.

every graphical effect the genesis does goes through the cpu

It's a social experiment to see if people, following a primal console war instinct, would start a dead-serious discussion about comparing the SNES to the Genesis out of nowhere.

On-topic: mode 7 for the win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG4V_kLL0NI

 

[krizzx]

every graphical effect the genesis does goes through the cpu

That's new information for me. I thought it all was handled by the VDP

 

[Krejlooc]

That's new information for me. I thought it all was handled by the VDP

the vdp handles drawing to the screen, interrupt polling, collision, etc

everything else is handled by the cpu

Easy way to conceptualize it - the vdp takes data and puts it on the screen, and provides any sort of feedback related to what the screen is doing.

Any time you need to actually order and arrange the data, say for stuff like scaling, rotation, etc - you do that with the cpu.

 

[krizzx]

the vdp handles drawing to the screen, interrupt polling, collision, etc

everything else is handled by the cpu

I thought what was displayed on screen was the sole question of the topic, since it only says "graphically". If it is asking which system had the best technical performance as well, then I would have to give it to the Megadrive/Genesis.

 

[Krejlooc]

I thought what was displayed on screen was the sole question of the topic, since it only says "graphically". If it is asking which system had the best technical performance as well, then I would have to give it to the Megadrive/Genesis.

graphics are more than just the process of putting pixels on the screen. do you not consider rotation to be a graphical trick?

 

[krizzx]

graphics are more than just the process of putting pixels on the screen. do you not consider rotation to be a graphical trick?

That I do. Though, like I said, I thought the question was asking purely about what is getting displayed on screen, since is asked which is more power graphically and not just which is more powerful. Which one is the topic asking for?

Overall, with all things included, I'd have to say Megadrive by leaps and bounds. You aren't going to run something like Starcruiser's intro and environment or Ballz on the SNES without some type of embedded chip like the SuperFX. Not at that speed and clarity.

 

[Krejlooc]

That I do. Though, like I said, I thought the question was asking purely about what is getting displayed on screen, since is asked which is more power graphically and not just which is more powerful. Which one is the topic asking for?

Overall, with all things included, I'd have to say Megadrive by leaps and bounds. You aren't going to run something like Starcruiser's intro and environment on the SNES without some type of embedded chip like the SuperFX. Not at that speed and clarity.

With systems of this sort, your cpu is intrinsically linked to your ability to display graphics. The snes does tricks with its cpu too, they are merely much less intensive. A vdp isnt a gpu, it is merely hardware to interface with the tv.

 

[kingkaiser]

It's a social experiment to see if people, following a primal console war instinct, would start a dead-serious discussion about comparing the SNES to the Genesis out of nowhere.

Looking at the comments, Pavlov would be damn proud.

On Topic: Colors>>>Number of Sprites

 

[Krejlooc]

Looking at the comments, Pavlov would be damn proud.

On Topic: Colors>>>Number of Sprites

manipulating pixels>>>colors

 

[Seik]

Last gen: PS3, well, at least some game showed the platform was on some superior plane a little bit with its exclusive.

SNES vs GEN: USUALLY I would say SNES because Mode 7 and all that jazz, but the Genesis had some sweet effects as some people demonstrated here already. One sweet exemple would be Gunstar Heroes with the Core Guard System boss. Graphically, at least to me, they were two very similar beast. If we put sound in the mix though, while the Genesis has its load of great soundtracks, to me the SNES wins.

 

[krizzx]

Last gen: PS3, well, at least some game showed the platform was on some superior plane a little bit with its exclusive.

SNES vs GEN: USUALLY I would say SNES because Mode 7 and all that jazz, but the Genesis had some sweet effects as some people demonstrated here already. One sweet exemple would be Gunstar Heroes with the Core Guard System boss. Graphically, at least to me, they were two very similar beast. If we put sound in the mix though, while the Genesis has its load of great soundtracks, to me the SNES wins.

You should check out Zero tolerance. Not bad at all for a 16 bit FPS with no analog or pointer control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcMLb22_Z5g

And Ballz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyFNr40dQmg

No graphical enhancement chips or addon's needed.

 

[rjc571]

Looking at the comments, Pavlov would be damn proud.

On Topic: Colors>>>Number of Sprites

SNES was better than Genesis at both colors and sprites

Colors:
Genesis - 64 on screen, 256 total
SNES - 256 on screen, 32768 total

Sprites:
Genesis - 80 on screen, max res 32x32
SNES - 128 on screen, max res 64x64

 

[krizzx]

SNES was better than Genesis at both colors and sprites

Colors:
Genesis - 64 on screen, 256 total
SNES - 256 on screen, 32768 total

Sprites:
Genesis - 80 on screen, max res 32x32
SNES - 128 on screen, max res 64x64

Looks that way on paper, but in real world results, the Genesis could display like 2-3 times as many independent sprites on screen at a time I believe.

 

[Dunkley]

Whichever one was better at scaling sprites.

 

[brainpann]

Confusing thread, lol, but i always wondered exavtly why Nintendo went with the cpu they did, in the SNES. I always heard it was because they wanted to orginally have famicom/nes backwards compatibility but wasnt the cpu in the genesis more closlely related?

 

[Haunted]

Neither question is even a contest, imo. It's SNES/PS3.

 

[Haunted]

And Ballz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyFNr40dQmg

Sound as shit as ever, but that's actually pretty impressive. Clearly better than the SNES version at least.